news The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has published a 72 page report detailing the fact that it is possible to establish a program to monitor and report to consumers on the quality of local broadband services, but has not yet decided to go ahead with such a program.

The regulator has repeatedly stated that it is interested in establishing a program to monitor Australian broadband quality. Similar programs have been established in the UK, United States, Singapore and Canada. This morning, the regulator released a detailed report finding that establishing such a service would be possible in Australia as well.

The report (available online in full in PDF format) detailed the result of a trial which saw the ACCC test approximately 90 Melbourne-based volunteers’ home fixed-line broadband connections on various technologies over a three-month period. The Pilot Program was carried out by SamKnows, who the regulator said operates similar broadband performance monitoring programs internationally, and Comdate.

Volunteers installed a hardware probe on their home connection and the probe ran a series of network performance tests. The metrics selected for testing included download/upload speeds, web browsing time, latency, packet loss, video streaming, jitter and DNS resolution. A range of results were observed against these metrics, with a noticeable trend in deteriorating performance during peak use periods, particularly in relation to download speeds.

“The ACCC believes a broadband performance monitoring and reporting program would promote competition and consumer outcomes by providing transparency over the quality of broadband services,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said in a statement.

“As the NBN rollout progresses, providing transparency over the performance of the monopoly network provider will be particularly important as retail service providers (RSPs) will be dependent on NBN Co for the underlying network capability. In this regard, visibility over any network-based performance issues would help identify whether any bottleneck issues in the network are attributable to RSPs or the network provider.”

“In addition, it is also important for consumers to have information about how different broadband products perform when choosing the option that’s best for them,” Mr Sims said.

“A broadband performance monitoring and reporting program can be designed to increase the available information about service performance, and thereby encourage RSPs to compete on the basis of service quality, not simply price.”

Sims said the regulator was “greatly encouraged” by the results of the pilot program, but a final decision to proceed with a future program had not yet been made. Any finalised program would need to involve further stakeholder consultation, according to the regulator.

“Similar broadband monitoring programs have been established in the United Kingdom (2008), United States of America (2010), Singapore (2011), and more recently, Canada,” Sims added. “Such programs have led to improved transparency of information and increased performance-based competition for broadband services.”

opinion/analysis
As an individual initiative, I think this is a worthy one from the ACCC. There are many complex aspects to providing a broadband connection — ranging from the quality of the physical line to customers’ premises to contention ratios, backhaul and even international connectivity. It’s good to see the ACCC seeking to put some hard data around the service levels we receive.

However, I would argue that the regulator is missing the big picture here. Say that customers use this kind of service to ascertain that their broadband provider is not delivering on their speed promises and that they are actually receiving a substandard service.

What the hell are they supposed to do about it?

I’m sure the ACCC would suggest that heightened levels of information about their broadband service would lead to consumers making more informed choiced about which broadband provider they choose. And in the past, this has been possible, with ISPs such as Internode reputedly having much better engineered networks than rivals.

However, the fact is that Australia’s broadband market has consolidated markedly over the past several years, and that there are now very few choices facing Australians when it comes to broadband access.

Those choices are limited to just four decently sized players — Telstra, Optus, TPG and M2 — none of whom are precisely known for the quality of their networks.

I recommend when (if) you get onto the MTM, join up to – https://truenet.nz/
Great third party internet stats collectors with very handy charts published every few months.
It is in New Zealand but they also do stats for Australia.

“A broadband performance monitoring and reporting program can be designed to increase the available information about service performance, and thereby encourage RSPs to compete on the basis of service quality, not simply price.”
Yes please. So why not name the RSPs? The increased information doesn’t achieve the stated goal without that information.

I might be a bit confused, but this seems to be a redundant concept. In an all-fibre world, this would make a lot more sense. In the MDM world, where speeds and quality are almost entirely driven by the quality of the ‘last mile’ infrastructure, it’s a tad pointless.

Bit cynical, the report shows variation between the four RSPs reported. This might indicate there actually is some difference between how Telstra, Optus, TPG and M2 manage their networks. Useful information for consumers to know.

The LNP won’t let this happen because it could expose performance issues.
Personally, I like the idea of a a system to monitor speeds if it facilitates a user pays system. If you are provisioned with MTM (ADSL2+1) at up to 25 Mbps and only receive 1 Mbps, you should only pay 1/25 th of the $100 per month access fee.

It will just result in those closer or with better speeds having to pay far more to cross subsidise the ones which aren’t getting the specified speeds and receiving a ‘discount’. The accounting overheads would also probably be a real nightmare and cost a fortune to administer.

@ Tinman_au
Is that some sort of code for “We’ll run it by Malcolm and see what he thinks?”.

Probably not , he is too busy stabbing his leader in the back & trying to get the Top Job . However Mr.TurnBullShit the Australian Public knows you have ruined Australia’s Largest Infrastructure Project & turned it to Shit , there is no way in Hell you would ever be put in the Top Job , because Everyone including my next door neighbour’s cat knows you are Incompetent at everything you do , including forcing a second rate Internet onto Australians , taking longer to roll out & costing more than FTTP could be installed for . You are a laughing stock both here in Australia ( all voters are onto you ) & lots of overseas nations . Dont bother wasting our money & your time putting your hand in the air , because at the next available chance you will be out & rightly so , you incompetent Turd …..

Comments are closed.

Book now available

Written by Delimiter Publisher Renai LeMay, The Frustrated State is the first in-depth book examining of how Australia’s political sector is systematically mismanaging technological change and crushing hopes that our nation will ever take its rightful place globally as a digital powerhouse and home of innovation.

Welcome! We were an energetic and engaged community of Australians who worked with or who were interested in technology -- all sorts of IT professionals, IT managers, CIOs, tech policy-makers and tech enthusiasts.